Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Surrender to Poland ordered in respect of one of six offences where correspondence is established
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in European Arrest Warrant proceedings where the Polish authorities seek the surrender of respondent for prosecution for six offences, and whose surrender had been previously refused, refuses surrender in respect of five offences, on the grounds that the Court was bound by the previous decision of the High Court in respect of correspondence in relation to these offences; and the court orders the respondent’s surrender in respect of the remaining offence, on the grounds that correspondence was established in the previous decision and there was no abuse of process.
European arrest warrant – prosecutorial warrant – six warranties – surrender sought of the respondent on seven occasions - issue estoppel - chronology of what has occurred since European Arrest Warrants - no prohibition or bar to a second, or indeed subsequent EAW’s issuing in relation to the same proceedings - the circumstances of every individual case must be the focus of any examination for the Court - must make a decision on this EAW in accordance with the law pertaining to EAW’s - satisfied that an executing judicial authority charged with making a decision on an EAW is bound to act judicially in considering the matter - principle of legal certainty - res judicata does not apply - no new information provided to the Court – previous High Court decisions on issue estoppel - judicial comity - issue estoppel involved as regards the correspondence of offences – surrender refused in relation to five of the six offences - whether it would be an abuse of process not to surrender him – abuse of process – no explanation why the Polish authorities thought they were entitled to surrender despite the previous refusal - delay was actually due to the respondent seeking to have the other offences for which his surrender was sought - personal circumstances - no abuse of process – surrender ordered for one offence only –
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
